There are other factors that affect the vibration frequency. When you add mass to the racquet, obviously you are changing the mass. I submit that whatever changes in vibration frequency you see are entirely due to this change in mass.

I will also point out that when you are actually playing with the racquet, the flex of the frame can be describe comprehensively by the static flex, mass, mass distribution, impact location, etc. You do NOT need to invent "dynamic stiffness" to account for any missing aspect of the impact event.

Click to expand...

greg, i might be over-simplifying or missing the boat altogether, but imagine a long pole, then imagine the same pole with a certain amount of mass added to the tip. wouldnt the latter have more "whip" when swung?

There are other factors that affect the vibration frequency. When you add mass to the racquet, obviously you are changing the mass. I submit that whatever changes in vibration frequency you see are entirely due to this change in mass.

I will also point out that when you are actually playing with the racquet, the flex of the frame can be describe comprehensively by the static flex, mass, mass distribution, impact location, etc. You do NOT need to invent "dynamic stiffness" to account for any missing aspect of the impact event.

Click to expand...

I did not invent the term "dynamic stiffness." It has been widely used in the engineering world for many decades.

And there is a flaw in your argument -- mass distribution cannot be practically measured, so dynamic stiffness IS necessary to fully describe the impact event.

Trav would you say this setup is good for everyone or for older folks? Like it seems to produce alot of power but for someone who can generate alot of their own power, will their balls be sailing long?

btw-have you found your camera cord to the comp? I'm dying to see some pics of the lead tape around the 10 and 2 regions as well as the buttcap.

I have noticed that best power on my 102 red Head Prestige is far closer to the throat than you would expect.
Sounds like adding weight at 10 and 2 would not only move the sweet spot up, but improve spin potential as well?

Yes. However, beware that adding mass at 6 o'clock increases the undesirable power differential between the lower hoop and the upper hoop, so I don't recommend that you add lead tape there.

Click to expand...

travlerajm, I have a quick question. Does adding 5 grams 4 inches above the buttcap increase torque/shock/instability? It makes the frame easier to maneuver on serves, but groundies seem to be/feel less solid. Any input would be appreciated, thanks.

Ideally, a racquet should have large concentrations of weight in the upper half of the hoop -- at 2 and 10 o'clock positions to resist twisting, and also at 12 o'clock to stretch the sweetspot upward. Mass in the lower half of the hoop or throat region is bad, because it makes the lower half of the stringbed more powerful than the top half. Also, mass near the midsection of the frame increases a racquet's dynamic stiffness, which leads to reduced spin potential.

Click to expand...

You mean that certain lead placement in the hoop (towards the top of it) will enhance string bed performance? Is this then in the sense that you will get a more uniform response over the whole stringbed, making the trajectory of your shots more predictible (given that you will not always hit the same spot), or is it because you consider it better to have a higher sweet spot (giving more power)?

Traditionally many players leaded at 3 and 9, I guess to optimise power level and torsional stability - like Sampras, etc. Were they "wrong"?

I know others have asked this before, but I would also love to see a picture of this monster. I'm planning a similar setup on a Pro Supex frame - weight at the butt will be added with heat-shrink sleeves & leather grip (4 1/4 starting grip, I'm a 4 1/2), with the hoop weights using Babolat lead.

Forgive me - I didn't read all 6,842 pages of the SW2 thread(s?) to see what kind of legitimacy travlerajm has earned. The skeptic in me reads this thread as "I'm going to tell everyone I did some crazy stuff with my racquet that made it magical, and I'm going to wow them by knowing more physics than 98% of them, and everyone will think I'm some sort of tennis/physics savant."
I'll apologize in advance if I've misjudged you, travlerajm. But I'm smelling B.S. unless pictures are provided, and probably a couple other folks from this board copy your idea and report similar magical results.

Instead, I wrapped ¼” strips transversely around the frame between the grommet holes, to form multilayered rings. Each ring weighs about 2.7g, with 12 rings total. I have 5 rings between 1:30 and 3, at every other space between grommet holes (so that the rings go around only the spaces where there is no string on the outside of the frame). And another 5 rings between 9 and 10:30. The other 2 rings are at 11:30 and 12:30. Then 1 more gram was added in the standard way at 12 o’clock to tune the swingweight. The rings don’t fly off when I swing because they are mechanically attached.

I then added 23g of lead tape ( in 2-7/8” x 1” segments) layered over the tapered part of the buttcap. So 56g of lead tape have been added total (33g in upper hoop plus 23g in butt).

Click to expand...

Where can I find the 23g of lead with specs: (2-7/8” x 1” segments)? I don't see it on TW site.

And does adding the lead at the tapered part of the buttcap make that part extra wide or it doesn't make much of a difference?

Sorry for some questions that may come off as nooby but I'm trying to customize it the exact same way you did it. Wouldn't mind if you told me which exact lead tapes you bought and some pictures would be great! Thanks!

The extra mass in the handle adds some topspin to my 2-hander and makes the racquet feel quicker at net. The really high recoil weight is very helpful on returns. The forehands and serve feel about the same is before, but with slightly more action on the ball.

I bought a 1"-wide reel cheap off auction site. Then I split it lengthwise twice to get 1/4" strips. Starting out with 1/4"-wide reel would be best. But for the weight at the butt, its best to use the 1"-wide reel.

And can you clarify how to wrap the ¼” strips transversely? And when you say mechanically attached, what machine do I need?

Click to expand...

I mean that I wrap the strips around the frame, perpendicularly to the frame. The frame cross section has roughly 2" circumference, so my rings are more than 5 layers thick. By mechanically attached, I simply mean that the rings cannot fall off because they are looped around the frame instead of just on the inside surface.

Wow, it sounds like one amazing racquet! Have any of the major racquet companies called you yet?

How much would you charge someone for one of those racquets?

Click to expand...

I would charge a lot, because I don't have much spare time to be the racquet customization business. My medical device startup takes up most of my time, and my wife gets most of the rest. I resurfaced in the tennis world this week because my wife went out of town.

You mean that certain lead placement in the hoop (towards the top of it) will enhance string bed performance? Is this then in the sense that you will get a more uniform response over the whole stringbed, making the trajectory of your shots more predictible (given that you will not always hit the same spot), or is it because you consider it better to have a higher sweet spot (giving more power)?

Click to expand...

Yes, it will give you a more uniform and predictable stringbed response, giving you more control. A stock racquet has higher power level near the throat of the racquet than near the tip, which makes it hard to control your shots because your depth depends on the location of impact on your stringbed.

Traditionally many players leaded at 3 and 9, I guess to optimise power level and torsional stability - like Sampras, etc. Were they "wrong"?

Click to expand...

Weight on the sides of the hoop is important too, because that is the only way to increase torsional stability. But most top pros who use weight at 3 and 9 also have substantial weight added under the bumper guard where you can't see it.

Is it possible to make similar tuning to the Bab APD Racquet? My son uses this and we could experiment with one, obviously we can not cut off any of the length.

Click to expand...

An APD is a good racquet to customize in this way. I would start by adding roughly 10g across the bumper guard region (enough to get the swingweight up to ~360). Tune the swingweight by adjusting the mass at the tip until your serve is most powerful. Then add enough mass to the butt to get the total weight up to 12.5 oz., or until it plays with the right amount of spin. Adjust the mass in the butt until your groundies feel most controlled.

What exactly is meant by "Bite"? Can you give me a more scientific definition?

Click to expand...

By bite, I mean the relative rebound angle off the stringbed for a given oblique impact.

As an analagy, consider throwing a tennis ball against a fast court surface at a 45-deg angle. The ball might rebound upward at about a 40-deg angle from the vertical.

Now if you through the ball against a clay surface (which has more bite than fast surface), the ball might rebound up at a 20-deg angle from the vertical.

The more a stringbed grabs the ball, the more bite it has. The more bite it has, the more spin you can hit with the same swing. If your racquet has more bite, you will need to close your racquet face more to hit the same trajectory shot, which will give you more spin.

The bite of your stringbed is affected by your string type and tension. And it is also affected by the weight distribution and flex of your frame. A flexible frame will give you more bite than a stiffer frame. And a frame with a highly polarized mass distribution will give you more bite than a frame with more mass in the middle.

By bite, I mean the relative rebound angle off the stringbed for a given oblique impact.

As an analagy, consider throwing a tennis ball against a fast court surface at a 45-deg angle. The ball might rebound upward at about a 40-deg angle from the vertical.

Now if you through the ball against a clay surface (which has more bite than fast surface), the ball might rebound up at a 20-deg angle from the vertical.

The more a stringbed grabs the ball, the more bite it has. The more bite it has, the more spin you can hit with the same swing. If your racquet has more bite, you will need to close your racquet face more to hit the same trajectory shot, which will give you more spin.

The bite of your stringbed is affected by your string type and tension. And it is also affected by the weight distribution and flex of your frame. A flexible frame will give you more bite than a stiffer frame. And a frame with a highly polarized mass distribution will give you more bite than a frame with more mass in the middle.

Click to expand...

That's pretty cool. So, when you say that this will add more spin to your shot, are you refering to a loopy spin where the ball travels high over the net, or are you simply saying that the ball will rotate more? I assume this greatly depends on the player's stroke and technique, but if all else is equal what affect does bite have on the ball?

That's pretty cool. So, when you say that this will add more spin to your shot, are you refering to a loopy spin where the ball travels high over the net, or are you simply saying that the ball will rotate more? I assume this greatly depends on the player's stroke and technique, but if all else is equal what affect does bite have on the ball?

An APD is a good racquet to customize in this way. I would start by adding roughly 10g across the bumper guard region (enough to get the swingweight up to ~360). Tune the swingweight by adjusting the mass at the tip until your serve is most powerful. Then add enough mass to the butt to get the total weight up to 12.5 oz., or until it plays with the right amount of spin. Adjust the mass in the butt until your groundies feel most controlled.

Click to expand...

travlerajm, thanks for the info, I will experiment with the racquet tomorrow.

Hey trav, before I try this on the prince POG i want to see if I understand what you mean by wrapping it around the frame and would like to try it on my old racket.

First off, using my old racket I took a picture of the 2 oclock region to see if I understand what you meant by doing somethign like this?

Sorry for the terrible paint drawing but basically the red line is where the lead tape would wrap. I assume I would wrape at each loop part about 5 layers?

And finally here's my old racket specs and was wondering if you could give me some recommendations on about how much to add and where.

wilson ncode something i forget as I got it a couple of years agolength: 27 inchweight: 10.6 oz. (figured it was this light to start off so I have alot of room to work with)headsize: 98 sq. in.balance: 32.2 CM (7 pts HL)

greg, i might be over-simplifying or missing the boat altogether, but imagine a long pole, then imagine the same pole with a certain amount of mass added to the tip. wouldnt the latter have more "whip" when swung?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "whip," but it will move differently because it has a different mass and a different distribution of mass. Pretty straightforward stuff.

I did not invent the term "dynamic stiffness." It has been widely used in the engineering world for many decades.

And there is a flaw in your argument -- mass distribution cannot be practically measured, so dynamic stiffness IS necessary to fully describe the impact event.

Click to expand...

Well, in engineering terms, "dynamic stiffness" typically refers to rotating machinery, such as shafts and rotors. An impact event involving a tennis racquet has nothing to do with "dynamic stiffness."

As for measuring the mass distribution, that's what you are measuring when you measure the swingweight. However, when you say "dynamic stiffness," not only are you not measuring it in any fashion, you still have failed even to define what you are talking about. That is, you have yet to tell us how the effects of "dynamic stiffness" differ from those of mass distribution.

For example, let's say you have three racquets that have the same form factor, lay-up, etc. Each of the first two have a flex of 62 RDC, a mass of 300 grams, a balance of 30 cm, and a swingweight of 300 kgxcm2. Presumably, you'd say that these two racquets are identical for all intents and purposes, and that they have the same "dynamic stiffness."

The third racquet, however, has a flex of 62 RDC, a mass of 290 grams, a balance of 28.69 centimeters, and a swingweight of 266 kgxcm2. Presumably, you'd say that this racquet has less "dynamic stiffness." If you were to add 10 grams at 68 cm, it would match the measurements of the first two racquets. Presumably, you'd say that now, all three racquets share the same "dynamic stiffness." Yet, what's part of the difference of the third racquet's new characteristics is due to the additional mass, and what part to "dynamic stiffness," whatever that is?

In other words, you claim to be changing the "dynamic stiffness" of the racquet by adding mass, but you seem to be discarding the changes in racquet characteristics due to delta mass, in favor of referring to "dynamic stiffness." Furthermore, altering the mass (and, hence, the mass distribution) also alters the center of percussion, recoil weight, hitting weight, and (depending on the location relative to the axis) the twistweight. Why discard these known characteristics in favor of an unknown, unquantifiable one?

By bite, I mean the relative rebound angle off the stringbed for a given oblique impact.

As an analagy, consider throwing a tennis ball against a fast court surface at a 45-deg angle. The ball might rebound upward at about a 40-deg angle from the vertical.

Now if you through the ball against a clay surface (which has more bite than fast surface), the ball might rebound up at a 20-deg angle from the vertical.

The more a stringbed grabs the ball, the more bite it has. The more bite it has, the more spin you can hit with the same swing. If your racquet has more bite, you will need to close your racquet face more to hit the same trajectory shot, which will give you more spin.

The bite of your stringbed is affected by your string type and tension. And it is also affected by the weight distribution and flex of your frame. A flexible frame will give you more bite than a stiffer frame. And a frame with a highly polarized mass distribution will give you more bite than a frame with more mass in the middle.

Click to expand...

This seems extremely misleading to me. The key factors involved in generating spin are stringbed stiffness and angle of incidence. The strings don't "bite" the ball. Furthermore, a shot with more spin almost certainly will not have the same trajectory as a shot with less or no spin.

I also don't understand how a flexible frame generates more spin. Flexible frames absorb impact energy, dissipating it through the work involved in flexing the frame. The stiffer the frame, the better it will be at transferring force into the ball.

This seems extremely misleading to me. The key factors involved in generating spin are stringbed stiffness and angle of incidence. The strings don't "bite" the ball. Furthermore, a shot with more spin almost certainly will not have the same trajectory as a shot with less or no spin.

I also don't understand how a flexible frame generates more spin. Flexible frames absorb impact energy, dissipating it through the work involved in flexing the frame. The stiffer the frame, the better it will be at transferring force into the ball.

Click to expand...

I believe you just answered your confusion with Newton's 3rd law which states, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

because with the 6 layers that would be required, the centrifugal force pulling on the lead when swinging is 6 times as great as with one layer. If the lead is added in 6 layers on the inside of the frame, the glue is not strong enough to hold it on the frame and it flies off the frame after a few strokes.

Click to expand...

I'm a BioChem major, and I took enough physics classes to say that "centrifugal" force isn't a real force. What you are talking about it called inertia, the resistance to change of an object's velocity (speed AND direction). The pulling effect that you feel inside a car when it is making a fast, sharp turn. Sorry about being a wise butt, but, I'm going to try this with one of my older racquets, this looks interesting. Thanks!

Haha, i don't mean to agitate or annoy the OP. I'm just trying to figure out EXACTLY what he did so i can do it too. I plan on doing it on the prince POG this summer but for now I'm going to see how it works on my old wilson ncode and to get some practice with customizing.

Haha, i don't mean to agitate or annoy the OP. I'm just trying to figure out EXACTLY what he did so i can do it too. I plan on doing it on the prince POG this summer but for now I'm going to see how it works on my old wilson ncode and to get some practice with customizing.

Click to expand...

The OP is obviously way too busy getting ready for the pro tour with that racquet to answer any reasonable questions. :twisted:

Although some of it is dated, the racquet rankings are kinda funky, and the research seems mostly aimed at body safety (obviously you will do better at tennis if you can still play) it will keep you from getting laughed at if you bring it up in front of anyone with even a small clue.

The USRSA also has tons of info http://racquettech.com
but then again neither of these sites claim to have discovered the secret that will blow the lid off of tennis, just good clean info you have to work at to use.

"The jawbone of an a** is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time." --- Richard Nixon

This seems extremely misleading to me. The key factors involved in generating spin are stringbed stiffness and angle of incidence. The strings don't "bite" the ball. Furthermore, a shot with more spin almost certainly will not have the same trajectory as a shot with less or no spin.

I also don't understand how a flexible frame generates more spin. Flexible frames absorb impact energy, dissipating it through the work involved in flexing the frame. The stiffer the frame, the better it will be at transferring force into the ball.

Click to expand...

Greg, with respect, I disagree.

When we talk of spin, we need to clarify whether we are talking solely about the ball’s rotational speed alone or whether we are taking about getting a ball to dip downwards into the court from it’s trajectory – let’s call this “effective spin”.

The trouble with “effective spin” is that it’s a combination of forward motion or the ball ( motion from baseline to baseline ) and rotational speed. The ratio is just as important as actual rotational speed.

Forgetting terminal velocity and assuming a reasonable trajectory, a ball rotating at 3000 rpm will not dip into a court if it is travelling forwards at 1000 kmh because the effective spin ratio is insufficient. The ball will likely have exploded through the back fence before rotational motion has any time to effect on the trajectory. If the ball has a forward motion of say 40kmh, the rotational motion has enough time to push the ball downwards before it reaches the baseline and it most likely will visibly dip and drop in, so effective spin firstly depends on the ratio of rotational speed to forward speed.

What Trav calls “bite” is in itself a combination of several factors, but the effect is rotational speed of the ball. Those factors are

1) A friction coefficient between the strings and the ball
2) Dwell time between the string and the ball
3) Amount of surface area in contact between the string bed and the ball.

Given the same amount of oblique motion of the racket head and racket head speed, Increasing any of these factors will increase rotational motion of the ball. Forget angle of incidence and whether the ball goes in or out. A player will compensate for these anyway, but it is the absolute amounts of rotational motion and forward motion that we are interested in.

1) The friction coefficient depends on the material properties of the string and ball. Tests have shown that putting a weight on top of a tennis ball and dragging over a polyester string bed requires more force than dragging it over a nylon string bed given the same weight on top. Poly’s have greater friction when the weight is high as do rough strings. The friction coefficient is not a constant and changes according to the amount of pressure between the ball and the string bed. Different strings have different curves, but if one were to plot pressure on the x axis and friction on the y, poly strings would produce an initial flat curve with sharply upward end like a J whereas nylons produce a flatter upward curve more like a straight line but likely to be upwards nonetheless.

2) Dwell time is increased by flex – either in the string with looser tensions or in the frame or with flexible frames. Anything that increases dwell time increases the potential to apply rotational motion. This is why spaghetti stringing works – because dwell time is massively increased when a series of de-coupled strings are allowed to individually act on the ball surface. It is also why flexible rackets increase spin – partly because forwards speed is decreased and hence the ratio of rotational speed to forward speed is increased, and partly because dwell time is increased allowing increased rotational motion.

3) This is the interesting one because it is in opposition to 2. A stiffer string bed will crush the ball and increase the amount of surface area contact between the ball and strings. Provided that friction coefficient is sufficiently high, rotational motion potential will be increased.

Weight added to a frame will increase it’s plough-through local to where the weight is added so where you put it influences whether that plough-through is applied to forward motion or rotational motion. By plough-through, I mean the effect of the increase in inertia of the racket acting on the ball such that the motion of the ball is increased.

I’m with Trav that a polarised frame potentially produces more spin because weight in the hoop increases the “plough through” of the head in it’s rotational motion without increasing the forward motion plough-through too much. So factors 1 and 3 are increased with respect to rotational motion and factor 2 is not affected too much. Secondly, assuming there is some rotation of the racket around the wrist as in a window washer forehand, the speed of the string bed at the hoop is greater than the speed in the middle which is greater than the speed at the throat. By increasing weight in the hoop, plough through is increased in a part of the racket where speed is greater. Polarising a frame doesn’t help if you hit the ball near the throat all the time. Greatest benefit is derived from striking the ball nearer the hoop.

Weight at 3 and 9 increases forward motion plough-through more than rotational motion hence “effective spin” is reduced because the ratio is reduced.

So would you say that any team racket, given enough lead tape and fishing weights can be customized into a polarized super racket?

Click to expand...

No. The POG LB starts out with much less weight in the lower hoop and mid section than any team racquet. That is why the shortened POG has a starting swingweight of about 280. No other frame that I know of can be customized to perform as well. Perhaps some of the early thin-beam Hammer frames are exceptions?

Without starting with such a light lower hoop, it is impossible to get as much torsional stability while at the same time getting as uniform a stringbed response over the entire racquet face.

A normal racquet loses power near the tip due to noticeable flexing (as the tip bends backward relative to the center of mass of the racquet) and due to rotation about the center of mass. In contrast, my superracquet does not noticeably flex backward at the tip because the tip has much more mass than the middle portion of the racquet -- rather, it feels like it flexes in the opposite direction (like a Head flexpoint is claimed to work). The main advantage of this flex pattern is extremely uniform power level over the whole stringbed. And the high recoil weight (190) minimizes loss of power near the tip due to rotation about the center of mass.

As for measuring the mass distribution, that's what you are measuring when you measure the swingweight. However, when you say "dynamic stiffness," not only are you not measuring it in any fashion, you still have failed even to define what you are talking about. That is, you have yet to tell us how the effects of "dynamic stiffness" differ from those of mass distribution.

For example, let's say you have three racquets that have the same form factor, lay-up, etc. Each of the first two have a flex of 62 RDC, a mass of 300 grams, a balance of 30 cm, and a swingweight of 300 kgxcm2. Presumably, you'd say that these two racquets are identical for all intents and purposes, and that they have the same "dynamic stiffness."

Click to expand...

Two racquets that have the same static flex, mass, balance, and swingweight can have different dynamic stiffnesses. That is mainly because the mass distributions are not fully specified by mass, balance, and swingweight alone.

In other words, you claim to be changing the "dynamic stiffness" of the racquet by adding mass, but you seem to be discarding the changes in racquet characteristics due to delta mass, in favor of referring to "dynamic stiffness." Furthermore, altering the mass (and, hence, the mass distribution) also alters the center of percussion, recoil weight, hitting weight, and (depending on the location relative to the axis) the twistweight. Why discard these known characteristics in favor of an unknown, unquantifiable one?

I don't get it.

Click to expand...

Who said it is unquantifiable? The frequency of the primary vibrational mode, coupled the node locations, provides a measure of the dynamic stiffness.

Hey trav, before I try this on the prince POG i want to see if I understand what you mean by wrapping it around the frame and would like to try it on my old racket.

First off, using my old racket I took a picture of the 2 oclock region to see if I understand what you meant by doing somethign like this?

Sorry for the terrible paint drawing but basically the red line is where the lead tape would wrap. I assume I would wrape at each loop part about 5 layers?

And finally here's my old racket specs and was wondering if you could give me some recommendations on about how much to add and where.

wilson ncode something i forget as I got it a couple of years agolength: 27 inchweight: 10.6 oz. (figured it was this light to start off so I have alot of room to work with)headsize: 98 sq. in.balance: 32.2 CM (7 pts HL)

Click to expand...

You have the basic idea.
If that is an nPro Open, it's a decent frame to start with. On that frame, you will be able to add about 25g to the 2 and 10 regions before the swingweight starts to go beyond the max-power point (which is at about 360). You will then need to add about 30g or so the butt to recover a balance that gives you good control on all shots. The exact amounts need to be tuned carefully using trial and error on court.

For the final tuning of the hoop mass, I use the power level of my serve as a guide. I find that my serve is most explosive at around 360 swingweight - use on-court trial and error to find the actual value.

For the final tuning of the handle weight, I usually start with less weight than I think I'll need, and then place a rubber grip strap around the butt (the kind that go at the top of the grip), and then tuck coins under the strap until I achieve the balance that gives me optimal control and trajectory on all shots. Once I find the balance, I replace the weight of the coins with additional lead tape under the grip.

Why use a POG? Try Speedport White Pro.
It has already a high a sw and adding 8g in the upper hoop and 26g in the handle the end result will be:
Static weight: 366g
Swing wight: 358
Balance: 9.2pts HL (31.34)
Recoil weight: 192

Same as yours with less lead tape and the hasle of cutting the handle.

Why use a POG? Try Speedport White Pro.
It has already a high a sw and adding 8g in the upper hoop and 26g in the handle the end result will be:
Static weight: 366g
Swing wight: 358
Balance: 9.2pts HL (31.34)
Recoil weight: 192

Same as yours with less lead tape and the hasle of cutting the handle.

Click to expand...

Because it wouldn't be polarized like he wants it to be. Try searching on SW2 (swing weight 2) and read about it. You might want to take a day off though, lot to read
I also play with something similar in specs. My leaded prince O3 tour MP is also 12.9 ounces, and swingweight and balance almost spot on as well. But the weight distribution is completely different. But i'm going to stick with my racquet, don't wont to risk lead posioning

hey, i was wondering what happened to the old SW2 gang. welcome back!!!

FWIW, here's my experience with leading up my iradical O/S (and reasonably similar experience with other racquets):

i tended a bit more towards making it more HH. i haven't been a fan of leading it up and then having it quite HL. just feels weird.

so i leaded it up progressively and starting getting absolutely amazing results but then i took it too far eventually my shots had no velocity or bite. then i had no more lead tape left (and i don't find the stuff reusable), so i just tore it all off and went back to original set-up but it definitely worked wonders. i would love to get back into it but i guess i need a really big lead tape order from TW.com. maybe i'll do it. i notice alot fewer places sell it these days. i wonder if it'll be evnetually banned. is there anything else that can replace it?? i think you could work with something that isn't nearly as heavy per size. but obviously it needs to be fairly dense.

anyhow, this stuff really works. i usually lose 6-2 to one guy. i was beating him 6-2 or worse regularly.......

No. The POG LB starts out with much less weight in the lower hoop and mid section than any team racquet. That is why the shortened POG has a starting swingweight of about 280. No other frame that I know of can be customized to perform as well.

Click to expand...

http://www.hdtennis.com/grs/pro_racquet_specs.html
By adding a total of 12 grams of lead on a stock APD, you get a frame like Nadal's. It has a SW of 355. He seems to spin the ball ok with it. Of course, this takes away the hours of fun tinkering around with tape and a hacksaw